Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it identifies the data source, warns that figures are LUMA's own published numbers rather than independent measurements, explains the planned/unplanned decomposition, and states that a missing history day means a failed read, never a zero. It also gives citation requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded, opening with scope and source, and every clause carries data or caveats. However, the first sentence is a long run-on that would be easier to scan as separate bullet-like clauses.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description enumerates the full expected result set, including count/share, planned vs unplanned, severity, seven regions, worst region, affected municipios, and optional history, plus failure semantics. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a 4 by adding daily-history semantics (one ~06:00 AST reading per day, behind the weekly Grid Watch) and the planned-work meaning tied to outage counts. Region parameter semantics remain mostly in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The definition names the exact resource (Puerto Rico's electricity grid status from LUMA Energy's public outage portal) and enumerates the returned elements: customer counts/shares, planned work, severity, seven regions, worst region, affected municipios, and optional daily history. This makes it easy to distinguish from generic siblings like get_conditions or get_water_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context is provided: use this for current LUMA outage figures and optionally the daily history behind the weekly Grid Watch. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.